CLC Says :NO To Martha Coakley

July 8, 2014

To: All Interested Parties

Re: Undaunted by Cape Light Compact's Efforts to Stonewall Inquiries, MA Attorney General Files SECOND SET of Detailed Information Requests Relating to CLC's Current Structure and Operations

Dear Cape Light Compact Members and other interested parties,

Please find attached a copy of the SECOND SET of information requests that has been filed by the MA Attorney General on July 3, 2014 seeking more detailed information on the Cape Light Compact's activities under the present review of CLC's "current structure and manner of operating" that is being conducted by the Department of Public Utilities (see DPU Docket 14-69 here: http://web1.env.state.ma.us/DPU/FileRoom/dockets/bynumber).

Notwithstanding the prior refusal of the Cape Light Compact to provide most of the information requested by the Attorney General in the AG's FIRST SET of Information Requests on May 30, 2014, the AG has is seeking additional information on all of the following topics relating to CLC's administration of the municipal aggregation in the AG's SECOND SET of Information Requests:

1. Amount of funds collected by CLC through the mil adder in excess of CLC's cost of administering the procurement of electric power for ratepayers. 
   
   
2. Intended use of funds in excess of the amounts required to meet the expenses of administering the power supply.
   
   
3. Plans, if any, to return any excess collected funds to CLC ratepayers.
   
   
4. The source of CLC's authority to charge a fee to the municipal aggregation program in order to generate revenue to fund other programs or operations.
   
   
5. Anticipated future process for negotiating power supply contracts, notifying customers of new rates and contracts and mailing opt out notices.
   
   
6. Procedures developed by CLC to afford member municipalities an opportunity to review new Electric Supply Agreements prior to their execution.
   
   
7. For Electric Supply Agreements, discussion of the process of soliciting bids, evaluating bids, negotiating, approving and executing agreements.
   
   
8. Discussion of whether CLC will execute an Electric Service Agreement if its price is greater than the Basic Service Rate for electricity consumers.
   
   
9. Indication as to whether there are any costs to the Plan participants (including the mil adder charge) in excess of the cost of generation charge of the electricity supplier.
   
   
10. Indication whether CLC intends to consult with DOER concerning the accounting for the funding of municipal aggregation programs.
    
    
11. Criteria CLC will use to determine the term (i.e. length) of any power supply contract.
    
    
12. Certification that CLC controls, and maintains, its web page (to which CLC had previously referred the Attorney General as the official source of some information). 
    
    
13. Copies of various documents, including minutes, Electric Service Agreements, Intergovernmental Agreements, prior version of the proposed Municipal Aggregation Plan.
    
    
14. Minutes of meetings where the Aggregation Plan was discussed and revisions were approved.
    
    
15. Disclosure of which participating bodies (municipalities and/or counties) held an "affirmative vote" to initiate the process of developing a revised aggregation plan.
    
    
16. Description of how the CLC process for soliciting bids for the power supply conforms to state law for procurement of electricity.
    
    
17. Disclosure as to whether CLC maintains accurate and comprehensive records of services performed, costs incurred, and reimbursements and contributions received.
    
    
18. Disclosure as to whether CLC performs regular audits of these records and if any such audit has been conducted within the last four years.
    
    
19. Disclosure as to whether CLC provides periodic financial statements to each of its member municipalities and counties as required by G.L.c.40, Section 4A.  If so, provision to the AG of copies of these reports for the past 4 years. 
    
    
20. Description of any additional "financial safeguards" that the Intergovernmental Agreement puts in place for participating municipalities and counties, as this term is described in G.L. 40.
    
    
21. Disclosure as to whether CLC "plainly marks" all bills and payrolls for CLC, as required by G.L. 40.
    
    
22. Explanation as to how CLC, as an unincorporated entity that is not a legal person, may enter into an enforceable agreement with a third party.
    
    
23. Disclosure of the provisions in the CLC Intergovernmental Agreement, if any, which grant CLC the power to sue and be sued.
    
    
24. Disclosure of the "co-operative organization to purchase or produce energy or renewable energy certificates..." to which the Aggregation Plan refers in Section 2.2.
    
    
25. Identification of all references to CVEC in the Aggregation Plan.
    
    
26. Disclosure of all municipalities and counties that participate in CLC but are not members of CVEC.  As to each such member, describe why such municipality or county is not a member of CVEC.
    
    
27. List of all CLC staff involved in administering CLC's aggregation plan, along with annual salaries.  For each staff member so identified, disclosure of which portion of their annual salaries are paid from funds generated by the mil adder.
    
    
28. Disclosure how any amounts generated from the "operational adder" in the Revised Aggregation Plan will be accounted for as part of the Barnstable County revenues and budgets for FY2014 and FY2015.
    
    
29. Disclose of how "bad debt" is handled under the Plan and who is responsible for such bad debt.
    

It is noteworthy that many of the questions and information requests posed by the Attorney General here, and in the AG's FIRST SET of Information Requests, are precisely the same questions and requests for information that have been asked of the Cape Light Compact by various members of the public, the Special Committee of Inquiry on the Cape Light Compact and the Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative, the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates and various other officials, including some municipal Energy Committees and Boards of Selectmen.

In response, the Cape Light Compact has stonewalled them all -- just as CLC is now attempting to stonewall the Attorney General -- with a dizzying array of excuses.

--CLC has refused to meet with individuals and various other parties and has refused to answer their questions, declaring that CLC is "not legally obligated" to do so.

--CLC has claimed an expansive privilege to secrecy regarding all of its financial affairs and refused to provide any detail on questionable financial relationships and transactions, including any information that relates to energy procurement and contracts.

--CLC has claimed that the various parties that have posed the questions have "no authority" over CLC and, therefore, no right to receive the information or evaluate CLC's  "current structure and operations."

--Now, CLC has attempted to dismiss virtually all of the Attorney General's questions by insisting that these questions are "outside the scope" of any proceedings to evaluate the implementation of CLC's proposed Revised Aggregation Plan, under whose terms CLC seeks authority to impose surcharges and provide power to approximately 200,000 residents of Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard -- and to spend any money that it raises through these surcharges for virtually any purpose, at the sole discretion of the CLC Governing Board.

To whom is the Cape Light Compact accountable, if not to the Boards of Selectmen and the Energy Committees in the individual CLC member municipalities; the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates; the Special Committee of Inquiry on CLC and CVEC that was established to understand the operations of the intergovernmental entity of which Barnstable County is a member; the Department of Public Utilities; the MA Attorney General; or the members of public whom the Cape Light Compact serves?

If not to any of these parties, to WHOM, then, is the Cape Light Compact accountable?

Now is the time for every Board of Selectmen in every member municipality, and the Boards of Regional Commissioners in Barnstable County and Dukes County -- which bodies act as the official Appointing Authorities for the members of the CLC Governing Board under the Intergovernmental Agreement -- to instruct their respective CLC board representatives to insist that the Cape Light Compact management and counsel provide their full cooperation to the Department of Public Utilities and the Massachusetts Attorney General -- Office of Ratepayer Advocacy in providing full and complete disclosure of any information that is deemed by these parties to be essential to understanding the operations of the Cape Light Compact.

Having said that, I predict that there will not be a single Board of Selectmen or Board of Regional Commissioners that will actually do so and that all of these respective bodies will continue to evade their responsibility for ensuring the integrity of this public body -- the Cape Light Compact -- that they collectively created, and manage, under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Agreement.

If even ONE Board of Selectmen adopts a Resolution directing the Cape Light Compact to provide its full and complete cooperation in answering the inquiries of the DPU and the Attorney General, I will be shocked.

Eric Bibler